Changyeun Hahn

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, better known as “North Korea” is led by Dear Respected Comrade Kim Jong-Un, Chairman of the Workers’ Party of Korea, Chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Supreme Commander of the Korean People’s Army. About 4600 miles away, the Syrian Arab Republic is led by President Bashar al-Assad, a leader with a much shorter title. Although the two countries are geographically distant and not often considered to be politically linked, they share a unique feature: both are run by leaders whose titles were heirlooms.

These two “democracies” are extremely relevant in today’s international affairs despite their relatively tiny economies. The population of both countries combined is 44.28million. In comparison the population of US is 326.3 million. Economically, Syria’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2010 was $60 billion. North Korea’s GDP in 2015 was $16.12 billion. Comparatively, the GDP of the US is $18036.7 billion. Two Davids standing on the same ground as Goliath. These heirs have leveraged Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) to stay in the international spotlight.

In 1953, Korea was divided into two with the establishment of the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). Syngman Rhee became the president of the Republic of Korea (South Korea) and Kim Il Sung became the ruler of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea); North Korea was determined to follow the communism it found in the Soviet sphere, while the South was inspired by US capitalism. The 38th parallel separating the two countries also symbolized an international divide: the US supported the South, and China supported the North. The image of North Korea as a land of famished children and oppressed people was not always the case. In fact, during the 50s and 60s, North Korea had a fast growing economy while South Korea struggled with a lack of agricultural resources and was dependent on significant US aid; at the time, North Korea was an enviable land. However, South Korea developed technology and saw economic growth in the early 2000s, while North Korea withered into the state it is in today. Under the leadership of President Park Chung-Hee, South Korean policies focused on looser policies for economic giants, which allowed it to compete in the world market with companies like Samsung and LG. Furthermore, instead of taking the advice of the US to crackdown on corrupt businessmen, South Korean policies took their bank shares and invested them in import-substitution industries. This unconventional method proved effective and the South Korean economy grew exponentially within just a few decades. Meanwhile, North Korean economy dwindled rapidly. Regardless of the state of the nation, the Kim regime continued to stay in power.

While Japanese rule in Korea led to a civil war, after the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the French-ruled Syria managed to gain independence with the help of Britain, while remaining intact. In 1943, the country had its first election. However, the initial years of independence were not calm. After many coups, Baathist army officers took control of the government in 1963. Three years later, Salah Jadid led an internal coup and Hafez Assad became the defense minister. In 1970, Hafez Assad overthrew then- President Nur al-Din al-Atasi and became the president of Syria. He continued rule until his death, when his son, Bashar Assad took over.

The current leaders of both countries have kept the same ideologies of their fathers but have changed priorities in their domestic, defense, and foreign policies. Despite domestic and international resistance, both leaders have also managed to remain in power.

Domestically, Kim Jong-Un has not alleviated the humanitarian crisis faced by his people. In fact, during his leadership, the number of executions has been staggering. The Dear Respected Comrade even had his own uncle executed. However, when he first came to power, he did put effort into improving public infrastructure. Still, there has been no noticeable difference in the treatment of North Koreans or the overall quality of life in the country. Many have suggested that due to the relatively short transition period from Kim Jong-Il to Kim Jong-Un, the current leader does not hold the same level of respect that his father once did. He also does not have the close-knit advisors that his father had.

Domestically, Bashar al- Assad has a bigger problem on hand than his father Hafez did decades ago. There is no debate that Hafez al- Assad in the Hama massacres showed little regard for his people’s lives, slaughtering 20,000 Syrians. About three decades later, in 2016, his son dropped 13,000 barrel bombs onto his own people. However, with the current war in the region, and especially its role as a proxy war for Russia, US, Iran, and the Sunni countries in the region, the level of chaos is incomparable. In the beginning of his rule, Bashar al-Assad suggested his openness to a more democratic nation, while specifying that it would not look like Western democracy. However, over time, the young leader has used the barbaric tactics of his father and simply worsened the situation. A part of this may be due to the fact that Bashar al- Assad was not groomed to be the next leader, but only became so after the death of his older brother Basil al- Assad.

Both heirs have undoubtedly committed human rights violations. North Korea has been under continuous scrutiny by organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International for its concentration camps. However, recently, especially after the April 2017 chemical bombings, human rights violations in Syria have garnered much international attention. Regardless, both countries have not shown much regard for international shaming. Both leaders also continue using the methods of torture utilized by their fathers.

With regards to defense policy, which is tightly interwoven in the foreign policies of both countries, Kim Jong-Un and Bashar al- Assad have become more aggressive than their fathers and have relied more heavily on WMD programs.

Since losing wealth and power, North Korea has resorted to brinksmanship–making threats that are only significant due to the nuclear power it possesses. This tactic was also utilized by the current dictator’s predecessor and father, Kim Jong-Il. In 2012, North Korea fired multiple artillery shells which resulted in a retaliatory attack by South Korea.

While the country has made brazen threats, the US stance on the issue has been heavily influenced by North Korea-China relations. Until May 2017, there was little evidence that China will abandon its “little brother”. In fact in 2016, when Kim Jong Un conducted nuclear tests, Chinese politicians continue to visit North Korea and deepen relations, instead of reprimanding the country. However, as Kim Jong-Un continued to invest and hasten its nuclear program, its relationship with China has been significantly strained. In contrast, the previous Kim dictators had been very careful to not upset China.

An easy example of what North Korea-China relations would look like to the West if the country did not have nuclear weapons can be found by looking at Syria-Russia relations. President Assad has been surviving solely with Russian support. Publically, Russia has vocalized repeatedly throughout the war for NATO to stay away from Syria. The current chaos in the country has become the home to a proxy war where US-Russia relations are being challenged. Despite Russia’s comments towards NATO, American involvement in the region has increased under the Trump administration. In order to protect its ally, Russia has continued to send military arms to Syria, allowing it to combat the rebel groups in the region. Russia is involved in Syria to protect its access to the Black Sea- more specifically the port of Tartus- which is only possible through the Mediterranean Sea. Furthermore, with the Assad regime gaining power in the region, there is little reason to expect Russia to stop supporting Bashar Assad.

The Syria-Russia alliance dates back four decades and has only been strengthened by. US involvement in the region. Although there are other countries where the government targets its people, like the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, it is the involvement of major powers in this proxy war that has kept Syria at the center of global issues. On the other hand, the horrors in North Korea are not new, but the country gained attention as Kim Jong-Un has heavily focused on improving its nuclear program.

Although both chemical and nuclear bombs are WMDs, the reality is that nuclear bombs create a bigger existential threat for the entire world. As the threats made by the Kim dynasty become more and more tangible, the international community has become more involved. Simultaneously, as the North Korean’s capabilities improve, Kim Jong-Un has been more brazen and willing to separate from his country’s ‘big brother’, China. The reality is that both countries are slaughtering their own people, but nuclear weapons seriously challenge other countries’ citizens and therefore give Kim Jong-Un more voice in the international arena. The chemical bombs that Assad has been utilizing, although horrific, mainly call for international human rights intervention. There is little threat to the outside world and thus the conversation has more heavily involved Russia. Without Russia, there is little chance for Assad to survive; however, Kim Jong-Un is outdoing his father’s legacy and creating a more robust nuclear program, albeit more dangerous, international ground.

Looking in the Mirror: Dukes of Anarchy was last modified: September 9th, 2017 by Changyeun Hahn

As of December 2016, just six months after President Rodrigo Duterte assumed office, the war on drugs in the Philippines claimed 5,882 lives–fewer than half of the victims were killed by police while 3,841 were murdered by unnamed “vigilantes.” These latter hitmen were inspired by the President’s policy against drugs. In 2012, there were an estimated 1.3 million drug users in the Philippines–which was significantly lower than in previous years. To put the number into perspective, one out of 100 people in the Philippines was a drug user. While there is clearly a drug use problem in the Philippines, the method adopted to remedy the addiction issue by President Duterte’s administration is a gross violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, set forth by the United Nations, as well as an inappropriate way of addressing drug addiction. Public displays of drug executions will merely make non-users fearful of drugs, but does not help those who suffer from addiction. The power of media in the 21st century spotlights the Philippine government’s formal barbaric methods, however, despite international efforts to criticize President Duterte, the brutality persists. A more effective method would be to increase funding for rehabilitation and to continue to destroy drug plantations and fields, a practice of the previous administration. The US can also influence Duterte’s actions by adding human rights clauses to current and future trade and bilateral economic agreements. Helping to address this issue is important for US-Filipino relations and the role of the US as a major world leader.

The reality is that the Duterte administration has forgone transparency in their approach to the problem. In fact, the Filipino Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) lacks any up-to-date information; the latest law and regulations were enacted by the previous president, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. There is no information about the Duterte Administration or its stance on drug policies and procedures. However, the media has offered a plethora of information regarding the administration’s illegal actions. While the issue persisted in media coverage as President Duterte entered office, the reality is that the former president’s efforts were effective in reducing the severity of the problem, and did so legally. Although the results were not as immediate as the current administration may have wished for, it protected countless innocent people from untried executions. After all, the drug problem in the Philippines is not limited to drug dealers but extends to the fundamental reasons why citizens rely on drugs. In fact, according to the US Agency for International Development, 19.2% of Filipinos lived in poverty in 2012. This is predominately because the majority of the population remains reliant on agriculture and fishing for their income. A commonly abused drug by farmers and fishers in the Philippines and Southeast Asia is shabu–a low-cost methamphetamine used to maintain the “Asian” work ethic, where one’s financial well-being is intricately tied to his pride. By re-implementing the former president’s methods of destroying shabu plantations and fields, the Duterte administration will effectively decrease the availability of drugs. By decreasing the availability of drugs within the country, the DEA can also focus on increased monitoring of foreign drug imports.

President Duterte has boldly ignored civilian’s writ of habeas corpus and due process rights in his approach to the war on drugs. As such, this policy did not come as a surprise. In his first State of the Nation address, Duterte explicitly stated that the government “will not stop until the last drug lord…and the last pusher have surrendered or are put either behind bars or below the ground.” The latter part of the statement is inappropriate from a leader of a nation. It also fails to acknowledge the gravity of murder. Furthermore, during his campaign, President Duterte stated, “All of you who are into drugs, you sons of bitches, I will really kill you.” Putting aside the use of explicatives by a presidential candidate, the campaign showed a clear interest for such extreme policies in his pursuit to fight drugs. The fact that President Duterte won the election is even more troubling. This suggests the public’s deep concern about the issue with the drug problem in the country. However, considering that approximately 650,000 Americans visit the Philippines annually, such violent and grotesque behavior can be fatal for visiting Americans caught in the crossfire.

It is the duty of the United States to address this blatant disregard of human rights, as a world leader. However, instead of criticizing the Duterte administration’s behavior, then President-elect Trump applauded Duterte’s efforts over a phone conversation and stated that, as a sovereign nation, the war on drugs was legitimate. Considering the US and the Philippine’s long history, the US is in a unique position to influence the country’s policies and should take this opportunity to ensure the protection of human rights. Since 2013, when Typhoon Haiyan struck the Philippines, the US has given over $143 million in assistance and continues to give to this day. The US is also one of the largest foreign investors in the Philippines and is its third-largest trading partner. One easy way to pressure Duterte’s government to reform its policies is to leverage the Generalized System of Preferences program for developing countries–which gives preferential duty-free access to the US market; there can be an additional clause requiring participating countries to abide by specific human rights regulations, such as the right to due process. Furthermore, the bilateral Trade and Investment Framework Agreement can also be amended to include similar clauses. This approach of pressuring governments to reconsider their behavior can be found in preferential trade agreements (PTAs) that include human rights language. In fact, PTAs have been found to be more effective than softer human rights agreements. This is due to the added economic incentive for countries to abide by human rights laws. For example, the EU “enacted the suspension clause” of the Lome IV Convention when Togo was not reforming their human rights violations. After the suspension of this convention, Togo took significant steps towards compliance by installing new electoral codes and new elections.

In no way should drug dealers or abusers be encouraged, however, they should be granted a fair trial, a right established by the 1951 UN Convention on Human Rights. Furthermore, the problem with this “shoot first” method is that it ignores the personal stories of each individual and robs many innocent lives. Most people within the United States have the privilege of not having to fear their safety in such manner, and with such privilege comes responsibility. It is important for the US to use its powerful global position and relation with the Philippines to remind the Duterte administration that such gross violation of human rights is not tolerated by the international community. It is most appropriate for the Trump administration to step back in its relationship with the Duterte administration until the Filipino government reevaluates its methods. Most importantly, in order to address the people’s reliance on drugs, an effective drug rehabilitation program is necessary. More effective drug rehabilitation programs- similar to those in the United States- should be installed and PTAs with the Philippines should be revised and/or include human rights clauses. If the US establishes such a precedent, it is more likely that other countries will follow in their footsteps. It is outrageous to slaughter scores of people based on a few mistakes. Even more so, it is egregious to rob lives over preventable and treatable acts.

US Intervention on Duterte’s War on Drugs was last modified: September 2nd, 2017 by Changyeun Hahn

In 2012, pictures emerged of US soldiers in the Helmand province guarding poppy fields. These fields are the sources of opium, which is used to make heroin. Afghanistan is currently the supplier for 90% of the world’sheroin. The United States should invest in destroying the poppy fields in Afghanistan for three reasons: to stop the rampant addiction in the region, to stop the illegal drug trade, and to help the Afghani government gain more control of the Taliban. In order to do this, the US should negotiate with the Afghani government to have the Drug Enforcement Agency Kabul Country Office take a greater lead on drug operations in Taliban controlled regions, address the the ways that heroin is leaving the country, and offer alternative occupation for those who currently work in poppy fields.

As of 2014, the US spent $8 billion in Afghanistan for counter narcotics. There is about 824 square miles (224,000 hectares) of land used for poppy cultivation in 2014. While clearly rampant throughout the country, growing poppies is illegal under Afghan law. This drug trade accounts for over a third of the Taliban’s income. The terrorist group profits from taxing poppy farmers and merchants, getting money from the truckers and opium labs, and selling to international narcotics cartels. The largest cultivation province is the Helmand province. Coincidentally, there are US troops still stationed in the Helmand province. The US may be avoiding eradication of the poppy fields in fear of potential consequences for local farmers under Taliban rule. However, allowing the illegal production to continue is not the answer to employment issues in the country.

By getting rid of the poppy fields, Afghanistan can better address the growing problem with drug addiction. The number of drug addicts in Afghanistan has gone from 1.6 million in 2012 to 3 million in 2015, accounting for 10% of the population. Furthermore, the drug that once was transported into the country is now supplied domestically, building upon the existing child addiction problem. Without the money to feed their children, parents have resorted to using puffs of heroin to help stave off hunger. This quick solution has terribly detrimental long-term effects on children. Repeated use of heroin changes the physical structure as well as the physiology of the brain. This creates an imbalance within the brain that is very difficult to fix. Long term use affects decision-making abilities, ability to regulate behavior, and responses to stressful situations. While there is no quick fix for opium addicts, decreasing the amount of heroin available is a start. Furthermore, addressing addiction will help ensure a stable Afghani government in the future.

From another angle, eliminating the Taliban’s drug source can effectively slow down the drug trade. The number heroin addicts in the US has been rising exponentially in the last decade. Decreasing the amount available generates a feedback effect that also lowers the number of addicts. With fewer addicts, less money will need to go into drug treatment–in turn helping the US government save money on future aid expenses. Similar trends would be seen in other countries considering that Afghanistan sources 90% of the drug.

Furthermore, removing heroin would cause the Taliban to lose a third of its budget and affect its capabilities to fight. While the US government has been working with the Afghani government to gain power back from the Taliban, the fundamentalist movement still maintains a strong grip in Afghanistan. Although a smaller budget may not destroy the group, it would slow down their ability to attack. With fewer attacks and the Taliban searching for other avenues of income, the Afghani government can have a better chance at dismantling the terrorist organization.

However, there are people that reside within the Taliban controlled regions. Although this accounts for only 6.4% of the population, many of these people that are working in the poppy fields rely on the drug trade. While this is already part of the strategy used by the United States, more funds should be dedicated to finding other avenues of income for local people.

Furthermore, eradicating the poppy seeds should only be one part of the solution. The US should negotiate with the Afghani government to have the DEA Kabul Country Office take a greater lead on drug operations in Taliban controlled regions. Within any unstable and weak government, corruption runs rampant; there has been much evidence indicating corruption in Afghanistan. Therefore, if the US is able to take greater control of the drug reduction operations, there may be better oversight to prevent corruption. Part of the DEA’s approach should involve addressing the different ways that heroin is leaving the country. This may require stricter airport security or border control. If the Taliban has less funds, less resources, and less ways of selling the heroin, it will be substantially weakened, which may ultimately allow the central government to reclaim control more easily.

US Involvement in Afghan Poppy Fields was last modified: December 1st, 2016 by Changyeun Hahn